Games

The RPG controversy of the year was Wizards of the Coast, a Hasbro subsidiary, draft Open Game License changes sent fans and game developers into an uproar. The OGL was a default license established in 2000 that allowed fans to use portions of the Dungeons and Dragons property in their own work. This was framed in similar ways to open software licensing in that it could be used as a foundation to create independent works as long as it was using the specific System Reference Document in doing so. This allowed gamers to develop their own works and even to sell them. The most commercialised version of this was the work of Kobold Press and Green Ronin that developed independent games using the SRD as a base. This has always been a successful space for creative engagement with a beloved property.

On January 4th 2023 a new OGL 1.1 was to be released but an early leak of this content exploded into the zeitgeist with very concerning changes including WOTC ability to claim royalties from sold works and complete control over the content produced. The backlash was huge and fans and content creators both began to rally online and establish a response to the changes. This response included unsubscribing from WOTC's digital toolset and protesting in social media. Further, the largest third party users (whose income was most threatened by the change) announced plans to step away and redevelop their own games.

WOTC has retracted its plans but the damage is done. But a number of key questions have begun to be raised: Was this a failure to listen to its fandom? Was this merely a cash grab? Has this action doomed WOTC and its aligned products into the future? Has this been the initiative needed to get more producers developing independent game engines? What does fully open sourced mean financially for game developers? How will this shape the next twenty years of gaming? And, significantly, does this mean D&D is dead?

Brecht has implemented in his theatre the "Verfremdungseffekt", which can be translated to the "alienation effect" or "distancing effect." Essentially, by creating interruptions or fissures within the illusion on stage, the audience can achieve a certain distance to the characters and events, allowing for evaluation and critique. During his performances, the audience is presented to some cues that indicates that what they are seeing is an ilusion, that what they are seing is actually an actor playing a scene. This cues can be strange objects, non-connected actions or actors speaking directly to the audience for example. Different of the Theatre of Pleasure, when the audience is emotionally connected to the play, Brecht seeks to create a critical discussion about what is being showed. He redefine it as Epic Theatre.

Is it possible to have the same effect in Video Games where you, as a player, is somehow intensively connected to the gameplay and the character?

In general, the mod (modification) of the game means the process of code editing and changing to add extra flavour on the original game. Usually, the mod makers are game players with sufficient coding or programming knowledge. Each mod can give different experiences to the gameplay and form specific player community. To analyse, how does the mod benefits both game and players? what motivates a player or players to make a mod? Who has the rights on the mod, maker of game company? What is your own opinion towards mod? The article will give insight into creative consumer and new cultural online society. Note: You can focus on specific game or company to give more detail on a specific group of community.

Bioshock is a video game franchise centering around the player entering a strange supposedly utopian city falling into disarray as its society breaks apart (Rapture, an underwater city isolated from the rest of the world free from governmental, religious and ethical control, and Columbia, a flying city theocracy embodying and literally worshipping late 18th century American ideals) run by a megalomaniacal idealist with twisted morals (Andrew Ryan, an ultra-individualist, and Zachary Comstock, an ultra-nationalist). Write about the political backdrops of the Bioshock franchise, analyzing what ideology each game is criticizing through narrative and gameplay mechanics and what is being said about them. Analyze the political messages implied by the cities and their inhabitants. What is being said about the political ideologies presented? What caused the downfall of the societies and how is it affected by their political systems?

Gaming in many ways is another medium that requires writers, and yet the approach to story telling in writing is unique and quite different as opposed to traditional storytelling via books. I propose an article that might entertain looking into the deeper facets of story and writing in the gaming industry and the unique approach that is taken in completing a script as opposed to traditional writing. Focus could be placed particularly on discussing the need for adaptability in characters, characterizing empathy and emotion within a character as we follow them while also playing as them, the duality of the protagonist and the gamer etc. which while coming naturally in traditional writing, have to be balanced against what is possible within the given game dynamics

Outer Worlds, made by Obsidian of Fallout New Vegas acclaim, is a open world RPG where you exist in an alternative universe where capitalism is even more unregulated than it is today.

Within the world of OW however there is little to be said in response to capitalism. In a future where "science" is good on it's face, marauders commit crimes because crime, and the world itself is limited by the imagination of the writers, what is displayed is a critique of the world not for ideological reasons but for practical and efficiency reasons. That is to say, Outer Worlds can lead the player to see some damning indictments of capitalism, but it will never allow for anything in game aside from a moderate reformism.

And that is a curious line to draw. What indeed can be said about advancement for advancement's sake when the human cost both in universe and out is seen as only worthwhile if it's apolitical. Where revolution is on its face dismissed for it's idealism, but "progress" is revered for making the future better.

I did a bit of research on 'The Witcher III: The Wild Hunt' last year while preparing to write a piece on the Video Game industry and its treatment of minority groups. The Witcher, of course, is written by Andrzej Sapkowski who is very obvious about what types of groups are being discussed, even if allegorically. I picked on the Witcher because it is among many of the power fantasy narratives that come with the genre.

There are currently several iterations of Geralt of Rivia, and similarly, this trend can be seen in The Last of Us and God of War. Our protagonists are fathers first, and the plot follows this innate connection between parent and child.

I'm interested to see where this came from? To what extent is it really a trend, or just a few notable additions to the AAA RPGs?

This article will analyze the growing trend of game developers and publishers moving towards subscription models instead of one-time purchases. Examples: Apple Arcade, Google Stadia, Microsoft's Game Pass (old, but now more aggressive than ever push towards subscription-only titles and removing one-time purchase options swifter than ever), Ubisoft , EA Play, PlayStation Now. Studios with a single game or franchise are also going the subscription route. Is this good? Bad? Subscriptions of the Game Pass, for example, have increased by millions in the last year. And it's true that indie games, when they come to Game Pass, earn more than they could ever make solo. Xbox Game Pass is a unique case which will need its own section here. Instead of subscribing to a service that gives free delivery (like Amazon) or TV shows (like Netflix) – a game can be anywhere from 20 hours of fun for hardcore games or 1,000 hours of play and replays – how is it fair that you pay less than I do for the same game in this case? A headline: "GDC has released its annual State of the Industry survey of 4,000 developers, over one-fourth of which were concerned such models would devalue games." Another topic to cover is games-as-a-service (or more broadly tech-as-a-service) models being adopted by videogame publishers and developers. Even gaming hardware seems to be moving in that direction, with Nvidia providing subscription to RTX 30-series gaming capabilities instead of actually owning a video card. Starting from newspapers and magazines; then moving to TV shows, movies, and software; and now to games – subscriptions seem to be the way forward. But is it really better to have a monthly subscription to play games than to own the games and judging by the current pace of things, even renting your hardware and not owning it?